On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 21:53 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> It's not at all clear from the above that it is a bitfield like this.
> Cairo doesn't have any existing bitfields, so there isn't really
> precendent. What what I'm used to (GTK+ style)
>> typedef enum _cairo_scaled_glyph_shape {
> CAIRO_SCALED_GLYPH_SHAPE_SURFACE = 1 << 0,
> CAIRO_SCALED_GLYPH_SHAPE_PATH = 1 << 1
> } cairo_scaled_glyph_shape_t;
>> and use 0 and
> (CAIRO_SCALED_GLYPH_SHAPE_SURFACE | CAIRO_SCALED_GLYPH_SHAPE_PATH)
> for the other two values.
I'd like to have CAIRO_SCALED_GLYPH_SHAPE_NONE = 0 as well; that's a
really common value, and using a bare '0' there seems confusing.
> I'm not sure if it's the names or the operations that are confusing
> to me? Can you call ensure_shape() without having called init()
> first? I'd think of init() to be always the first thing you do?
The first time, you use _init. After that, you use _ensure_shape. The
metrics are always in the cache, the shapes are optional. Calling
_ensure_shape without having called _init is an error.
> What if you extended your enum to:
>> typedef enum _cairo_scaled_glyph_shape {
> CAIRO_SCALED_GLYPH_SHAPE_METRICS = 1 << 0,
> CAIRO_SCALED_GLYPH_SHAPE_SURFACE = 1 << 1,
> CAIRO_SCALED_GLYPH_SHAPE_PATH = 1 << 2
> } cairo_scaled_glyph_shape_t;
>> s/shape/info/ and dropped init()? If that encodes the meaning, then
> it would be a lot clearer to me.
Yeah, that's a whole lot nicer looking. Sold.
-keith
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/attachments/20050822/ac3816d3/attachment-0001.pgp